Corona Virus

[Kevin Seitzer]

You are always going to have unknowns. We have ackowledged that. I'm saying put that to the side, that's not even what I'm talking about. All the numbers that come out have unknowns.

I'm talking about the numbers based on the known data. They are using a formula to come up with it. I'm saying that formula makes no sense to me.

Bringing the unknowns back into the conversation doesn't make the formula based on the knowns make any more sense.

I would guess the simple answer is that recovery data is both harder to come by and laggier than overall infection numbers. And if the death rate is really in the 1-5% range, it's not going to change the numbers that much in the long run, not nearly as much as the other problems with counting will.

[Ken]

I would guess the simple answer is that recovery data is both harder to come by and laggier than overall infection numbers. And if the death rate is really in the 1-5% range, it's not going to change the numbers that much in the long run, not nearly as much as the other problems with counting will.

How do we know what the death rate is really? That's what we are talking about calculating? Isn't that a chicken and egg scenario?

One of the biggest issues I see with using overall infection numbers is that number is growing... fast. But I assume you don't die on day 1, so your denominator is going to grow much faster than the numerator, meaning we would be under-reporting the mortality rate in the short term, no?

[Sour Masher]

How do we know what the death rate is really? That's what we are talking about calculating? Isn't that a chicken and egg scenario?

One of the biggest issues I see with using overall infection numbers is that number is growing... fast. But I assume you don't die on day 1, so your denominator is going to grow much faster than the numerator, meaning we would be under-reporting the mortality rate in the short term, no?

And I assume that is by design, to lessen panic. But I could be wrong.

[Gregg]

How do we know what the death rate is really? That's what we are talking about calculating? Isn't that a chicken and egg scenario?

One of the biggest issues I see with using overall infection numbers is that number is growing... fast. But I assume you don't die on day 1, so your denominator is going to grow much faster than the numerator, meaning we would be under-reporting the mortality rate in the short term, no?

I have no idea. But I do have questions. Where would Tom Hanks and his Wife fit in. They are not recovered, they are not dead, but they do have the virus confirmed. So breaking it down to a small number. I am dead, you are recovered, and Tom and Wife are not either. Is the mortality rate with this example 25%, recovery rate 25% and Unknown 50%?

[Ken]

And I assume that is by design, to lessen panic. But I could be wrong.

Could be, I take the scientific study numbers more on face rather than looking for political or cultural *intent* though.

Also I got tired early on of seeing facebook posts of "derp, only X people have died in the US, why is everyone concerned, derp", when those numbers are growing every day.

[Ken]

I have no idea. But I do have questions. Where would Tom Hanks and his Wife fit in. They are not recovered, they are not dead, but they do have the virus confirmed. So breaking it down to a small number. I am dead, you are recovered, and Tom and Wife are not either. Is the mortality rate with this example 25%, recovery rate 25% and Unknown 50%?

I'd personally call your example a 50% mortality rate until we have better data, but that's coming from someone who likes hard numbers and I don't like considering unknowns as one side or the other.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Facebook is pretty much all Derp

[Sour Masher]

I posted this on the baseball side. I really wish we could pull this off. It would be hard, I know, but the extreme suppression strategy seems best. If we could all quarantine for about 3 weeks--I mean really isolate--it would allow the virus to run its course in everyone that has it right now. Then, it would be gone, or close to it, and we could all go back to normal by tax day. Again, it won't happen, but that would be by far the most expedient solution. Much better to hunker down for 3 weeks than have to go back and forth shutting everything down for a year or more.

[Gregg]

I do not know if this is National or just Illinois but now they are stating that Funerals and wakes need to be confined to 10 people.

This is a knee buckler for our family.

[Kevin Seitzer]

How do we know what the death rate is really? That's what we are talking about calculating? Isn't that a chicken and egg scenario?

One of the biggest issues I see with using overall infection numbers is that number is growing... fast. But I assume you don't die on day 1, so your denominator is going to grow much faster than the numerator, meaning we would be under-reporting the mortality rate in the short term, no?

There are epidemiological models for this that seem to be coming back with death rates in the range from 0.5% to 5%, depending on assumptions they are making. They try to account for a number of factors, including how many people are infected but don't get tested, and the delay from diagnosis to death. I'm not an epidemiologist, so I don't know much more about them than that.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Here's a link to one such study:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0233_article

[Ken]

There are epidemiological models for this that seem to be coming back with death rates in the range from 0.5% to 5%, depending on assumptions they are making. They try to account for a number of factors, including how many people are infected but don't get tested, and the delay from diagnosis to death. I'm not an epidemiologist, so I don't know much more about them than that.

I think the models are looking at mortality rates in the future, and I agree that I'm seeing the same thing.

My concern is how we are looking at the data we already have. But I'm no expert so maybe I just shut up and accept what is being reported. It's just hard for me to do that when it's data analysis which is something I enjoy.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Ah, here's a study that makes a helpful distinction between the Case-Fatality Ratio (which is what you see reported) and the Infection-Fatality Ratio (which is what we would really like to know). They estimate the IFR at 0.3% to 1.0%.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=3346b04f_2

[Kevin Seitzer]

Both of those studies are a month or more old by now. I would assume there is better data available at this point.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Just got a call, a friend (a few years older than me) passed away last night from the flu. Hadn't been tested, had diabetes and other health issues and had symptoms for 3 weeks. We weren't close, but she'd been a friend for almost 40 years. I'm sure they'll do an autopsy, but should it be CV19 there are others she knew (her mother) who were put at risk.

If you guys feel sick, flu like, please do everything you can to get tested.

If not for yourself, for others.